On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:52:59PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote: >On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote: >>At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote: >>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple >>>of avenues of investigation to make the patch smaller by using >>>functionality already built into the upstream make. All that remains >>>is for someone to actually "do the work" (tm). >> >>Paul suggested adding the define HAVE_DOS_PATHS to the cygwin build of >>gnu make: >> >>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-07/msg00882.html >> >>Christopher countered with, >> >>"There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile which >>contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in that case. >>Despite having suggested this repeatedly, it seems some users are still >>not clear on this concept." > >You've already mentioned a situation where MinGW does not do the right >thing (albeit on the wrong list).
...and we don't really know if it is a true "does not do the right thing" since we aren't experts in the software in question. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
